The curriculum and assessment review was an opportunity to tackle a primary driver of rising SEND numbers and the resulting demand for special school places.
You might be wondering, what does the curriculum have to do with SEND? The answer is: a lot
To make the connection, consider the definition of SEND: when a child has needs that call for more than the ordinarily available provision in school, then they have SEND.
If that “ordinary” provision narrows, it is reasonable to assume that the number of children failing to meet its standards will grow. Taken to its logical extreme, if provision becomes narrow enough, we could end up with 100% of children being identified with SEND.
Setting ‘meaningful’ standards
As things stand, over a third of children are identified with SEND at some point between reception and year 11.
This is not to downplay their very real needs. It is to highlight that when a curriculum is not calibrated to all children (including those in special schools), the task of meeting those needs becomes unnecessarily challenging.
The point is not about lowering standards. It is about setting standards that are meaningful for all and mindful of differences in children’s development.
How well did the review grasp this opportunity? While some important improvements were adopted, the results are mixed.
The planned reduction of GCSE content, for instance, is both sensible, and unsurprising for veterans of the last curriculum review in 2014.
If there is barely time to introduce children to all the facts in the syllabus, as is the case in some subjects, then there is certainly no time for adaptive teaching.
The latest review has placed a lot of eggs in the adaptive teaching basket, having done less to adapt the curriculum itself for children with SEND.
A significant exception is the planned introduction of an oracy framework to complement the literacy framework. Speaking and listening are vital precursors to reading and writing and fully deserve the attention.
The policy should be taken further, ideally coupled with a national assessment and adjustments to the primary phonics and reading curriculum to make space for these skills early in a child’s development. Nonetheless, it is an important step forward.
The two failures
Underpinning the review, as with education policy broadly, is a lack of curiosity and ownership regarding SEND, and the children these policies affect. Consequently, the review has fallen short for young people with SEND in two key areas.
First is the continued omission of personal, social and emotional development (PSED) from the curriculum after age five. This is a glaring gap with particular resonance for children with SEND.
Our research has showed that PSED is the early learning goal most likely to be missed by children who later require a statutory Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
The second failing is its refusal to consider how narrow qualification requirements create curriculum inflexibility which, in turn, drives a deficit in inclusion.
The government’s proposed reforms to progress 8 are a positive step, but changing the prominence given to any particular subject does not address a more fundamental issue.
Since the Wolf review took effect in 2014, there have been no qualifications approved at key stage 4 designed to meet the needs of disabled young people and enhance their preparation for adult life.
The review notes that around four percent of young people – a similar proportion to those with complex needs – take Level 1 or Entry Level qualifications post-16, many in the personal and social development and employability category.
But it says nothing on whether these qualifications should be more readily available earlier. If the government wishes to see more children with SEND in mainstream education, it must not make young people wait until they have left school to access qualifications relevant to their needs.
SEND is always treated as someone else’s responsibility or a job to be tackled later. This passivity must end.
The curriculum programmes of study may be the last chance for a decade to make good on the PSED curriculum gap, and updating available qualifications is a key test of the government’s resolve to make mainstream schools more accessible.
Your thoughts